This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/03/2019 at 02:10:11 (UTC).

GABRIEL RAMIREZ ET AL VS ASUNCION GARCIA ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/17/2017 GABRIEL RAMIREZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ASUNCION GARCIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and MAURICE A. LEITER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8662

  • Filing Date:

    07/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

RAMIREZ ALEX

RAMIREZ EFRAIN

RAMIREZ JASON ANDREW

RAMIREZ NADIA

RAMIREZ LIVIER

RAMIREZ GABRIEL

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

GARCIA ASUNCION

PARAMOUNT CITY OF

DOES 1 - 50

CALIFORNIA STATE OF

EXPERT PLANT CARE INC.

WILLDAN ENGINEERING

FERRANTE DAVID M.

WILLDAN ENGINEERING A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ROE 2

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HINMAN JOHN S.

IKUTA BENJAMIN TAISUKE

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

BIGLEY PAUL A. ESQ.

MARIAM CRAIG JOEL

BIGLEY PAUL A.

WESIERSKI & ZUREK LLP

Cross Defendant Attorneys

SHAVER THOMAS WILLIAM

HAITH SCOTT

 

Court Documents

Answer

11/20/2019: Answer

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING LODGING OF COURT DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF PARAMOUNT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

7/11/2019: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING LODGING OF COURT DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF PARAMOUNT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Request for Judicial Notice

8/28/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

8/28/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Case Management Statement

10/1/2019: Case Management Statement

Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DIRECTED TO THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR GEICO, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, T

10/16/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DIRECTED TO THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR GEICO, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, T

PARTIAL REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

3/7/2018: PARTIAL REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Separate Statement

2/26/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration - Declaration Compendium of Evidence/Declarations in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

2/26/2019: Declaration - Declaration Compendium of Evidence/Declarations in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Proof of Service - No Service

3/14/2019: Proof of Service - No Service

Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

3/25/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT CITY OF PARAMOUNT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4/10/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT CITY OF PARAMOUNT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/30/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT CITY OF PARAMOUNT'S NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT CITY OF PARAMOUNT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

5/17/2019: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT CITY OF PARAMOUNT'S NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT CITY OF PARAMOUNT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Cross-Complaint

5/21/2019: Cross-Complaint

DEFENDANT CITY OF PARAMOUNT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH

8/8/2017: DEFENDANT CITY OF PARAMOUNT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/25/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/31/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

65 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/05/2020
  • Hearing10/05/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • Hearing09/28/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • Hearing02/25/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (by Defendant Willdan Engineering) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike by Defendant W...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Asuncion Garcia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketAmendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Asuncion Garcia (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Subpoena) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Compendium of Evidence in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Paramount, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketSeparate Statement (OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,SUMMARY ADJUDICATION); Filed by Paramount, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
94 More Docket Entries
  • 08/08/2017
  • DocketSummons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Livier Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Alex Ramirez (Plaintiff); Efrain Ramirez (Plaintiff); Gabriel Ramirez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Alex Ramirez (Plaintiff); Efrain Ramirez (Plaintiff); Gabriel Ramirez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Alex Ramirez (Plaintiff); Efrain Ramirez (Plaintiff); Gabriel Ramirez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH - SURVIVAL ACTION (CCP 377.30) AND FOR WRONGFUL DEATH (CCP 377.60) 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC668662    Hearing Date: January 23, 2020    Dept: A

# 11. Gabriel Ramirez, et al. v. Asuncion Garcia, et al.

Case No.: BC668662

Matter on calendar for: Demurrer; Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    This is a wrongful death and survival action. On June 29, 2016, decedent Rosa Salazar was proceeding through the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Jackson Avenue when Defendant Asuncion Garica allegedly turned left in front of her, resulting in a fatal collision. Plaintiffs allege the intersection was dangerous because of a 49-foot offset. Defendants also include the City of Paramount, the State of California, and Willdan Engineering (Doe 1). Defendant Garcia has filed a Cross-Complaint against Defendant City of Paramount.

    The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action:

  1. Negligence, and

  2. Dangerous Condition of Public Property

    Defendant Willdan now demurs to the FAC. Cross-Complainant Garcia moves to quash a deposition subpoena served upon his insurer, Geico, which was served by Cross-Defendant City of Paramount.

    For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds as follows:

  1. Standard

    1. Demurrer

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (C.C.P., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer." (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609610.) Under Code Civil Procedure § 430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

  1. Analysis

    1. Judicial Notice

The Court grants Defendant Willdan’s request for judicial notice of the declaration filed alongside Paramount’s Summary Judgment, the original Complaint filed in this matter, and the Department of Consumer Affair’s record. However, the Court does not take judicial notice of the facts contained therein. (Cruz v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1131, 1134.)

    1. Certificate of Merit Under Civil Code

      Code of Civil Procedure § 411.35 requires a certificate of merit be filed and served on the defendant in a professional negligence action that involves an architect or engineer. The certificate must state that the plaintiff’s attorney has consulted and received an opinion from an expert in the field, leading the attorney to conclude the action is meritorious. The certificate must be served with the complaint, or counsel must provide an adequate excuse for not timely doing so. (C.C.P., § 411.35.) When an attorney is unable to obtain a certificate of merit before the statute of limitations period runs, they are allocated an additional 60 days to obtain, file, and serve the certificate from the date of service of the complaint. (C.C.P., § 411.35(b)(2).)

      The alleged incident occurred on June 28, 2016. The original Complaint was filed July 17, 2017. Defendant Willdan was added to the Complaint on July 24, 2019. Defendant Wildan filed a demurrer that raised the issue, resulting in the FAC, filed November 11, 2019, which includes a certificate of merit.

      Defendant Willdan, relying on Curtis Engineering Corp. v. Superior Court (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 542, argues Plaintiffs did not file the certificate within the applicable window and that the relation back doctrine does not apply to certificates of merits. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Curtis and argue the relation back doctrine does apply to the certificate of merit because the Curtis court was not faced with a recently added Doe defendant.

      Curtis involved a crane operator who was injured when his crane tipped over on May 5, 2014. The complaint was then filed on May 3, 2016, naming the at-fault engineer. A certificate of merit was not filed until December 1, 2016, when it was filed with an amended complaint. (Curtis, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at 545.) The court analyzed whether the certificate could accompany the amended complaint in relating back to the originally filed complaint and found that it could not. The court focused on the specific language of the statute: “Section 411.35(a) requires that ‘on or before the date of service’ of a complaint the plaintiff ‘shall file and serve the certificate specified by subdivision (b).’ ” (Curtis, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at 548.) The court noted that it did not find “any cases supporting the proposition that the relation-back doctrine applies to a certificate which, by statute, is required to be filed ‘on or before the date of service’ of the original complaint. [C.C.P., § 411.35(a).]” (Ibid.) Nor do Plaintiffs provide any here. The court concluded by stating that “[a]pplying the relation back doctrine in this situation would render meaningless the statutory requirement that the certificate be filed ‘on or before the date of service.’ [C.C.P., § 411.35(a).]” (Ibid.)

      The instant case involves procedural facts of a slightly different nature. Plaintiffs argue they did not know of Defendant Willdan or its involvement until the February 26, 2019 summary judgment motion was filed. This was outside the two-year statute of limitations and well beyond 60 days of the original complaint’s filing. Plaintiffs argue Curtis did not involve a reconciliation between Sections 474, allowing fictitious naming of defendants, and Section 411.35. However, the Curtis court did tangentially mention Doe defendants when it analyzed a related requirement under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1. (Curtis, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at 550.) In that analysis, the Court noted that Section 411.35(a) “require[s] that a certificate be filed before any defendant (be it a Doe or named defendant) is served with the original complaint.” (Ibid. [emphasis omitted].)

      Defendant Willdan’s involvement was discovered in February 2019, but Plaintiffs failed to include the certificate when they served Defendant Willdan with the original Complaint in July of 2019. Plaintiffs’ failure to serve the certificate at that time was an error that cannot be corrected at this stage in the proceedings. Section 411.35(b)(2) clearly outlines the possible circumstances that excuse the serving a complaint without the necessary certificate—a fast approaching statute of limitations—and those circumstances are not met here. By attempting to hitch the certificate to the FAC, Plaintiffs have aligned the pertinent facts of this case with those in Curtis, and the action as to Defendant Willdan must be dismissed. The opinion in Curtis leaves space for later service of a certificate on a Doe defendant, but that must coincide with the initial service upon that defendant.

      Additionally, Plaintiffs’ original Complaint alleges that the City’s employees, including its engineers, were negligent in the construction of the intersection. (RJN, Exh. C ¶ 24.) Had Plaintiffs included a certificate at that time, it would have functioned against all Defendants under Section 411.35(c).

      The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

    2. Motion to Quash

Cross-Defendant City of Paramount requested documents from Cross-Complainant Garcia’s insurer, Geico. Cross-Complainant Garcia objected, arguing in the motion to quash that the request sought privileged material. However, Geico was not informed of the motion to quash before it produced the requested documents. Cross-Complainant Garcia’s counsel has reviewed the documents and found that they do not include any privileged documents. (Opp. Exh. A.) The Reply then morphs this motion into a request for sanctions because counsel for Cross-Defendant sent the produced documents to all of the parties in this action.

The Court will not issue sanctions without affording the other party a proper mechanism to oppose. This motion to quash is now moot. If Cross-Complainant wishes to pursue the matter, he will need to do so by filing a separate motion for discovery sanctions.

All subsequent motions must comply with this Court’s rules, which require an informal discovery conference before a discovery motion is heard.

  1. Ruling

    The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

    The motion to quash is moot.

    Next dates:

    Notice:

Case Number: BC668662    Hearing Date: November 21, 2019    Dept: A

# 13. Gabriel Ramirez, et al. v. Asuncion Garcia, et al.

Case No.: BC668662

Matter on calendar for: Demurrer

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

In response to the demurrer, Plaintiffs have filed the First Amended Complaint. A plaintiff has the right to amend before the opposition was due; a requirement that Plaintiffs have met. (C.C.P., § 472.) The demurrer is taken off-calendar.